From Item Estimates to Test Operations: The Cascading Effect of Rapid Guessing

Abstract Inadequate test‐taking effort poses a significant challenge, particularly when low‐stakes test results inform high‐stakes policy and psychometric decisions. We examined how rapid guessing (RG), a common form of low test‐taking effort, biases item parameter estimates, particularly the discrimination and difficulty parameters. Previous research reported conflicting findings on the direction of bias and what contributes to it. Using simulated data that replicate real‐world, low‐stakes testing conditions, this study reconciles the inconsistencies by identifying the conditions under which item parameters are over‐ or underestimated. Bias is influenced by item‐related factors (true parameter values and the number of RG responses the items receive) and examinee‐related factors (proficiency differences between rapid guessers and non‐rapid guessers, the variability in RG behavior among rapid guessers, and the pattern of RG responses throughout the test). The findings highlight that ignoring RG not only distorts proficiency estimates but may also impact broader test operations, including adaptive testing, equating, and standard setting. By demonstrating the potential far‐reaching effects of RG, we underline the need for testing professionals to implement methods that mitigate RG's impact (such as motivation filtering) to protect the integrity of their psychometric work.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Educational Measurement
Published
2025-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.70010
Primary Topic
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

From Item Estimates to Test Operations: The Cascading Effect of Rapid Guessing

Christine E. DeMars, Sarah Alahmadi
Journal of Educational Measurement
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
article

From Item Estimates to Test Operations: The Cascading Effect of Rapid Guessing

Christine E. DeMars, Sarah Alahmadi
article en

Abstract

Abstract Inadequate test‐taking effort poses a significant challenge, particularly when low‐stakes test results inform high‐stakes policy and psychometric decisions. We examined how rapid guessing (RG), a common form of low test‐taking effort, biases item parameter estimates, particularly the discrimination and difficulty parameters. Previous research reported conflicting findings on the direction of bias and what contributes to it. Using simulated data that replicate real‐world, low‐stakes testing conditions, this study reconciles the inconsistencies by identifying the conditions under which item parameters are over‐ or underestimated. Bias is influenced by item‐related factors (true parameter values and the number of RG responses the items receive) and examinee‐related factors (proficiency differences between rapid guessers and non‐rapid guessers, the variability in RG behavior among rapid guessers, and the pattern of RG responses throughout the test). The findings highlight that ignoring RG not only distorts proficiency estimates but may also impact broader test operations, including adaptive testing, equating, and standard setting. By demonstrating the potential far‐reaching effects of RG, we underline the need for testing professionals to implement methods that mitigate RG's impact (such as motivation filtering) to protect the integrity of their psychometric work.

Journal of Educational MeasurementVol. 62(4)
James Madison University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.